[MoriartyL]

Umm.. I would. In format, it's exactly like every other simulation game I've played. I wouldn't consider flight games the same medium, even though they're called simulation, so them having multiplayer says nothing. First-person shooters aren't about managing systems, they're about aiming and shooting. So those aren't simulations either.

So far, I see no reason to not define a strategy game, as I said earlier, as a competitive simulation. Let me illustrate what I mean. Have any of you played SimTower? You're managing a tower, where you build the tower and set prices on offices and condos and you provide security and restaurants and other services, trying to get a five-star rating. Now say the game were modified only slightly, such that there are two towers, each controlled by a different player. The two towers are competing with each other, so one getting a lot of business means less business for the other. What I am suggesting is that this is now a strategy game, because by introducing the element of competition it becomes no different from German-style strategy board games!

Conversely, if you were to take checkers and take out the other player, it would suddenly become a simulation game. You are managing a group of pieces, trying to turn them all into kings. An abstract simulation, to be sure, and boring because there is no challenge, but it is essentially the same as a simulation videogame and should be classified as such. You're managing a fairly open-ended system with set rules, trying to improve your status. That's what a simulation game is, is it not?